This interesting article in the NY Times business section tells us a couple of things.
FIRST, that some fund managers think it is a good idea to offer American voters the chance to invest in companies that are sympathetic to their political outlook. Of course, only one of the two funds mentioned is politically partisan. The one included for 'balance' promotes free enterprise, not the Republican Party, and they are frequently not the same thing at all. This fund specifically renounces partisanship in its investment strategy and actually invests in the 450 largest stocks in the S&P 500.
SECOND, the NY Times is prepared to write up some very small scale fund launches if one of them suits the political outlook of the Times, and the other can give a bogus appearance of 'balance'.
What we do not lear from the Times - for this we require citizen journalism - is that Times reporters see no need to mention that they are puffing an investment vehicle which owns stock in the NY Times.
That means the second thing that the NY Times does not deign to share with its readers is that an investment fund with a commitment to invest only in companies which "act blue" - ie in support of the Democratic Party - believes that this criterion can be met by investing in the New York Times.